TAKE ONE Presents... - The Dinopod 3: JURASSIC PARK III (2001)

Episode Date: November 27, 2024

Simon and Jim return to Isla Sorna for Joe Johnston's JURASSIC PARK III, the neglected third child of the original Jurassic Park trilogy. They get into the film's troubled production history, the continual retreading of the first film, the film's dull regression to the mean, and how this film surprisingly establishes a lot of the preoccupations of the JURASSIC WORLD films including extreme Velociraptor intelligence and a backgrounding of feminist issues. Content warnings: death and mutilation, animal abuse, misogyny, sexual abuse and statutory rape. Our theme song is Jurassic Park Remix by Gabriel Filósofo available on SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/gfilosofo/jurassic-park-remix Full references for this episode available in Zotero at https://www.zotero.org/groups/5642177/take_one/collections/VTMH66UP

Hello and welcome back to Take One presents the Dinerpod, a podcast where we're watching all the Jurassic Park franchise. films in order, contextualising them and critiquing them. I'm Simon Bowie, and I'm joined by my co-host, Jim Ross. Hi, Jim. Hello. And we're here to discuss Jurassic Park Free, 2001's Jurassic Park Free. As the title suggests, the third film in the Jurassic Park franchise. I, just before recording, I said to my partner, we're going to record, we're going to do Jurassic Park Free today.

And they said, is that the actual title? I said yeah I said oh that's a bit shite in it sorry we just stopped in recording after you said that that's it that's hard on episode folks done

it says all it needs to be said about the kind of lack of imagination of this film no it's just called Jurassic Park 3 I think it's is this the only one with numbers in the title yeah yes the only one with numbers in the title the only one to suggest

sequence and... It's also the one that doesn't attempt some sort of communicating what the story's about through the title, right? I mean, you can make that case about Jurassic World, but like even its sequels, like the whole fallen kingdom and Dominion thing.

Yes. I'm trying to say something. This one's just... And also particularly the film that we just spoke about, the Lost World, of course. There's a lot of implications there in that choice of title. But, yeah, this one doesn't... Nope. They had some going into

production, they were going to call it Jurassic Park Breakout or Jurassic Park Extinction or the Extinction, colon, Jurassic Park 3. But they didn't go with any of them. They didn't go with extinction because the studio felt that it was very final. I suggested a definite end of the franchise, which studios do not like. And in the end, they just went with Jurassic Park 3. I actually think a good title if they were going to go down this route or do the, you know, the Tom Cruise film that they basically tried to retroactively retitle, you know, Live Die, well, it's called, Edge of Tomorrow, but they seem to insist on calling it Live Die repeat and kind of like the box art and stuff. If they were going to go root, it's, I actually

think Jurassic Park Survivor would be a good name for this. If there wasn't already, I think, a computer game with that name. Quite probably. Because there's a few things going on here that we'll get into where I think that would probably convey that and the studio would probably be happy with that as well. I think there's more problems with this film that I'm sure we'll get into, but it's an interesting entry. There are, there are, there are problems with this film, but I saw this the same

week, I saw The Substance and Megalopolis, so this was actually one of the better films I saw that week. I watched this as part of a weekend triple bill with Megalopolis and Joker 2. Fun. And I was expecting this to come out as

the best one. I actually, the more I think about it, Yeah, anyway, I'm probably writing reviews of both megalops and Joker 2 for the site, so I'll keep my powder dry on that, but I was surprised that every single one of these, those three films surprised me in a different way when I watched it, I would say. Joker 2 is still not good, by the way, just to be clear. Oh, good. I think it's better than I was expecting, but it's not good. Megalopolis? We're stopping recording if you liked Megalopolis.

We're done. I did, admit. I did. I did. It swings wildly between half-decent and abysmal, and it makes some interesting points, I think, and amongst some other extremely more dodgily phrased, but it's a weird film, but I mean, frankly, I would, I would recommend going to see it because it's such a weird film. You rarely get, you really get films at that scale that are that odd, you know. I think that's true. That's a philosophical debate for a different day. Yeah, I'll say, I'll agree with that, but I'll say, I don't think it's worth seeing.

but we're not here to review Megalopoulos Francis Fodgopoulos a big pile of shite we're here to review Jurassic Park 3 we're recording this in early October

I guess from that last mini discussion there but yeah but Jurassic Park 3 what's your history with Jurassic Park 3 do you remember first seeing it

it's probably sadly indicative of maybe some of my opinions in the discussion we're going to have that I don't really remember to be honest with you I was going to say the same I have a clear

memory of Lost World and Jurassic Park and enjoying them as a kid. Jurassic Park 3, I obviously saw it, presumably in the cinema, but left no lasting memory on me. But that's the thing. I don't think I did see this in this. If I had to put money on it, right, I think what I've probably ended up doing is I have seen this when it either came out on DVD for rental, right? because as we discussed before, this is in this era where I'm at home and blockbuster. I'd still live at home, I'm a teenager, or blockbuster still exists, right? So there's a fairly high probability I saw it that way. The other possibility is this came out about three years before I left home to go to university.

It is also possible that I've picked this up in an HMV bargain bin at some point around about the 2005-2006 time frame and watch it around then. I can remember my impressions of it. I can't remember when and where I formed those impressions is basically the problem. Yeah, like I say, I can't remember seeing it. Similarly, we had it on DVD, but I don't remember getting a lot of watches out of it. It just seems to have bounced off my brain. And we'll discuss why that is as we go into it. But this comes out in 2001.

So 2001 in film is something of a turning. point towards fantasy and towards fantasy film because the top grossing films of the year are Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone number one, The Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring, number two. Monsters Inc. Shrek

and then a run of other films. Ocean's 11, Pearl Harbor, the Mummy Returns, Jurassic Park 3 at number 8, Planet of the Apes, the Tim Burton version. I bloody hated that. I definitely saw that in the cinema and I did not like it. So we discussed Planet of the Apes as a potential

for this kind of format this series format that we're doing because there's some wild films in there and it's a long running series with different directors but yes Tim Burton's Planet Eapes is something and Hannibal at number 10

Ridley Scott's Hannibal and again a Hannibal series potentially interesting for this kind of format but yeah a big swing towards fantasy with Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings coming out in a way that will kind of culminate in many years from now with the Game of Thrones series and the kind of dominance of fantasy in TV and film.

But Jurassic Part 3, not as highly regarded as one or two, it's much lower down this highest grossing list. So this comes about. Spielberg expected to direct the first sequel, but he left the third film to his friend, Joe Johnston. So Joe Johnston is a visual effects designer originally, who became friends with George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg and kind of got into directing that way. The studio obviously wanted another Jurassic Park film. Michael Crichton was going to collaborate with Spielberg and create a script, but ultimately ended up having no involvement with the project.

So they got a first draft of the script from Craig Rosenberg, who isn't credited as a writer, but he had this idea about teenagers being marooned on Isla Sona. Spielberg had an idea about Grant having snow. knock on to Ila Sona or one of the other islands to study the dinosaurs because he wasn't allowed to study them and he wanted to study them. But they don't get made. Peter Buckman gets hired to rewrite Rosenberg's draft and does so. There's a script that's kind of similar to the final product where Grant wants to go and research the dinosaurs over there but he can't get

funding or permission from the Costa Rican government. He meets a wealthy businessman who offers him a donation for a tour of Ila Saurna and they agree and they fly over but it's forced their crash they crash land and they're forced to make their way off the island similar to in the final film there was always the idea of the aviary sequence because that's from Crichton from from the original Jurassic Park novel but ultimately that script was felt to be too complicated and it took too long getting Sam Neal to the island getting Alan Grant to the the island. I feel like it might have over-corrected in the

film, but we'll discuss that in a minute in terms of the complexity of it. Right, possibly. They wanted a simpler script. So they called David Cope, who wrote the first two films, and he's writing the latest film, incidentally, the one that's yet to come out. And he suggested a simpler rescue mission.

Like, they just go to the island to rescue someone who's been trapped there, which it becomes the actual film. He didn't do a rewrite, but they took on those ideas, and they hired Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor to rewrite Bookman's script based on Cope's ideas. Alexander Payne is a director of note for who you might know from the leftovers or sideways. He's also been accused of statutory rape by Rose McGowan in a way that Hollywood doesn't seem to want to deal with. but anyway he was brought on to do the rewrite he knew lower durn so he suggested putting low adorn in it as ellie satler uh which is a good idea and they add a lot of humor and smooth out bookman's script to make it more sort of streamlined i say all this stuff about the

script because the script was not finished all this was going on while the film went into production the the the script wasn't finished when they went into production uh and i think that contributes to a lot of the problems of the film. So Johnston referred to making the film as a living hell. In an interview with IGN in 2001, he referred to making the film as a living hell on a daily basis. He was very close to quitting the film over the lack of a finished script when they went into shooting. William H. Macy, similarly, has been very critical of the filmmaking process in a TV guide interview in 2000

he was talking about how the scripts has been evolving and being rewritten as we go and what you want to say is who launched a $100 million ship without a rudder who's getting fired for this but that's the way it goes

that's the way they make these movies I think someone should be shot but I'm not in charge interesting tells that you really feel will yeah interestingly later in that interview he also says

we make all these jokes about it that we're acting like puppets and that it's all computer and that sooner or later they're going to replace even us with computers. Very far-seeing interview with Willie Macy

interviewed in the year 2000 who kind of foresees some of the AI issues that they'll be on strike about in a couple of decades. But yeah, everyone was fairly cynical about it and did not enjoy making it and the production was

rushed. The script was not finished when they started shooting. So let's let's run through the film then let's see how this these script problems manifest on screen I think it's safe to see ahead of doing this I don't know what you

think so you think but I was thinking about this and kind of the structure that we usually have around kind of like looking at these films in each episode this is probably going to be the quickest recap you know like it's just to set to see it

I realize that I may be getting into the commentary part of this a little bit too quickly but it is remarkable when you actually sit down and take a step back and look at this film how little not only how little happens right because it's it to a certain extent that's not necessarily surprising

it's like I mean how long is the film it's a short film I was going to say it's a brisk 90 minutes and it feels like 90 minutes it just flies by yeah right so in that respect it's not necessarily surprised you know me saying there's a much blood not much happens well I mean only so much can happen in an hour and a half but it's

I think quite separate to the other two films that have come previous to this. And I do have a bigger comment that I can make later where I found interest in watching this film. It's how little it does, how little it happens and how little it has to say. Right. Yeah. In terms of the recap here, it is going to be the quickest of it. Frankly, any of these films, including the Jurassic World films, I think, right? Because it is so tight and in some ways that works to the film.

film's advantage, and again, I'm going to circle back to that later, but not a lot actually happens here, certainly compared to the two films that have immediately preceded it in the series history. Yeah, so, interestingly, it might feel like the film has been edited down to this very slim version, this version that moves very briskly and moves very quickly. But that's not the case. Apparently, the film's longest rough cut, without credits, was 96 minutes long Joe Johnston told DVD file.com

and so it was only edited down to 92 minutes so it's the shortest Jurassic Park film but it wasn't made that way in the edit they just only shot 96 minutes of footage or enough to fill 96 minutes which is significant because it does feel like it's been edited but clearly it just hasn't clearly it just didn't film quite enough

So we start with a boat heading towards Isla Sona, a restricted island, which we know from the last film is Site B, Injun's second island. A boy and his father are paragliding to the island with a company called Dinosaur, and the boat heads into a bank of fog and crashes, leaving the paragliders to crash down on the island. So already in this brief opening scene, we get a lot of references to the original film. So the production logos have a kind of T-Rex-Stomp ripple effect. There are music references to the first film. You know, the main theme kicks in very early. And repeatedly as well. So I've got that it's music references where the main leit motif just appears in places that aren't appropriate.

It doesn't make sense for the leit motif to be here because it's not a particularly spectacular moment. We've also got some unconvincing green screen with the, the kid and the father flying that just feel my heart's already sinking at this point at these little bits of lack of care it had the green scheme actually the thing with like the parasail

and it is pretty shanky green screen I have to say I mean it's actually you know so it's the very first note I'm looking at my notes here and I've got the heading JP3 and the very first bullet point I've written down is parasailing green screen isn't great right and it had very big die and other day vibes to me really yeah

It wasn't... Very harsh. But, yeah, agreed. And it's just these callbacks to the original film. I mentioned in the Lost World episode that I liked how little it called back and how it was trying to do something new. You know, your view on how that, well, that succeeds or not is irrelevant. It is trying to do something new.

And so it doesn't call back to the main theme. You know, John Williams doesn't bring that back, apart from in a little character moment. but this is just full-on Jurassic Park theme from the gale and it's it's kind of disappointing so Alan Grant is teaching Ellie Sattler's kid how to play with dinosaurs Ellie is settled down she's married with kids and Sam Neal and Laura Dern are very charming as these characters

Ellie has moved on from Jurassic Park but Grant has Grant still works in paleontology and he has a new theory about velociraptors that they could vocalize with one another for communication, and that that made them smarter than dolphins or whales or certain early primates. There's an interesting point to be made here about Ellie Sattler and the role of Ellie Sattler in this film and in the franchise. So there is a terrific article by Lauren Toshinov in

Synergy, which is an Italian journal of cinema called Inheritance, the legacy of Ellie Sattler in the Jurassic franchise. And it talks about the franchise's view of feminism through the lens of Ellie Sattler. So it's well worth reading in full. But ultimately, it's talking about how when we first meet Ellie in the first Jurassic Park, she is a symbol of feminism and kind of the independence of women. There's that great line about women inheriting the earth in response to some chauvinist's comments that Malcolm and Grant are making. But the franchise argues, the article argues, that when we next see Ellie Satler in Jurassic Park 3, however, she is a mother of two children and married, the centre of a nuclear heterosexual

family, a notable change from her earlier portrayal as a career-focused woman in a male-dominated field. The article makes the point that increasingly the Jurassic Park films move away from Sattler's original feminism into the form of feminism that we'll see in Jurassic World, in the form of Bryce Dallas-Harris character. And the characterisation is indicative of the franchise's ultimate celebration of maternal heteronormative women and the villainisation of those who don't fit that mould. I think that's a very strong point. And I also think it really does hammer what is, I don't want to say it's a concern of this film in the later films. It's more kind of like a dull regression

to the mean, right? The dull regression to what is considered normal, right? Because the thing about the thing about kind of like the nuclear family and kind of the heteronormative nature of it, you even see that in some of this film's other concerns in terms of like who the

who the, I don't want to say heroes, but who the kind of like supporting protagonists are outside of Grant, right? Because we're talking about a couple that are looking for their child and it's a couple that is divorced and kind of like they make nods towards them reconnecting and restoring the kind of like the traditional family structure and you know it's it's there i don't think it's necessarily at the forefront of the film's thinking but i think it probably

is to my mind indicative of the lack of imagination this film has right the the the way that it's not really thinking all that deeply about what it's doing. And I think the comment about Jurassic World and its sequels is also the same thing, right? And I'm not going to go into it too much because we'll talk about that film when we come to it. But particularly when you think about the way the clear deathing character is presented there, and then you contrast that with Ellie Sattler and Lord Derrne's performance in the first film. It is remarkable how much less considerate it is of, how it's presenting things.

You know, so it's not that I'd ascribe any malice on the film's part to this, but it is really an example of how little it's thinking about some things. Yeah, and I bring it up here because this is kind of a turning point as a franchise turns into Jurassic World, and we'll see some of the changes that come from that, which we'll get into in more detail, but I just want to highlight Ellie Sattler's role here. So the article talks about Sattler's ability to be an action heroine,

is tied to her role as a mother. So in Jurassic Park, she has no children. She's nurturing a maternal, but she can get involved because she has no children. In Jurassic Park 3, she has children and therefore distances herself from scientific inquiry and the adventure itself.

By Jurassic World Dominion, Sattler's children's are grown, don't require her attention, therefore she is allowed to go on another adventure. So it's a fascinating article that I'm sure I'll come back to when we talk about Jurassic World, but it's interesting to see Ellie in this light so early in the film. We move on from Ellie and Grant to Grant lecturing in front of a huge audience

at a conference. The QA starts, everyone raises their hands for questions, but they're all related to Jurassic Park or the San Diego incident, much to Grant's frustration. Grant talks about some of the issues of the park and talks about how, once the UN decides how to handle that second island, which reinforces my point from the last episode in that the film screenwriters don't want to deal with that second island. So they'll just say, oh, the UN doesn't even know how to do with this. We don't know how to deal with this. No one knows how to deal with this. Grant is also fairly dismissive about the island itself and Hammond's theme park monsters, which he says aren't real dinosaurs, and he'll say something similar later in the film as well.

There's another scene where some mercenaries are testing weapons and vehicles out in a desert. There's not much to say about it other than there's a familiar ringtone that is established in this scene that will come up again later. I just, I want to touch briefly on that lecture scene with Alan Grant. It was something I found fast.

There's two things to it, one of which I'll come back to later, but the one thing I want to deal with right now is, it's kind of a remarkably bold scene for this film to include, right? Because it's almost kind of like a repudiation of people's interests in the first two films, right? Because they're explicitly called out, right?

basically he says it's, you know, does anybody have any questions that are not about Jurassic Park, i.e. the first film, or the San Diego, Vincent, i.e. the second film, right? And basically, the implication here is meant to be, right? You know, you're not interested in what I'm doing now. You're not interested in the important questions about things that actually happened and, you know, you're, you're distracted by these fripperies, right? To make that statement as the character of Alan Grant within this film. When this film goes on to do very little of interest, right? There are some things it does well, I think, right? I think it's worth pointing that out. I don't think this is a complete kind of like damp squib. No. But for a

film that is so unambitious, that is a really bold scene to include, frankly. And I'll say one of the things I do like about this film is Alan Grant and the characterisation of Alan Grant. Yes. Because he's a little more cynical of the whole endeavour in this film. He's a little little darker I would say and a little more dismissive of the island of dinosaurs like say he just referred to them as theme park monsters so yeah I I appreciate how they're positioning Alan Grant and saying this isn't serious paleontology

this isn't serious business this isn't actual science this is a theme park we cut to Montana there's a scene that's obviously intended to evoke the start of the first film where Grant is doing a dig out in the desert, his PhD student, Billy, is teaching a woman how to dig up fossils, which also speaks to the feminism of the film, or lack thereof. Especially when there's some weird dialogue choices and that, so you... Yeah, I don't know what it's... There's a little bit of kind of establishing, like, sexual tension, sexual harassment happening. It's weird. I don't know. It's like, there's a reference made to kind of like, you know, how you tell her, something's rock or bone, and then there's the...

They linger on the line rougher smooth when they're like stroking. It's weird. I didn't like that scene, to be honest. It was, I felt like it was trying to be kind of cute, and it just ends up creepy, frankly. But anyway. Yeah. With the nut...

But should go back to your point about how this franchise now is now treating women, and it's kind of like feminist or lack of evidence presented from me here. It's a very small... Yeah, I have no proof of this. But with the knowledge that Alexander Payne and his writing partner's contribution was adding quote unquote humor to the film I imagine those scenes are from Alexander Payne

and I've already established my thoughts on Alexander Payne earlier when I discussed him yeah you know so I hadn't even made that connection it does make it a little bit more eyebrow raising but it's this is all intended to evoke the first film so Grant is busy on a dig but is shown some technology that will change how they do paleontology so Billy has a 3D printer

that can print the resonance chamber, the voice box of a velociraptor. So it's very like Jurassic Park. This is all evocative of the first film where Grant has shown some technology that he doesn't believe in that can change how he does paleontology and he's very dispisible of it. I'll also note that the resonance chamber, when Grant blows through it,

sounds nothing like the raptors from the first two films, who had a very distinctive sound design that it doesn't really match, which is a bit frustrating. Continuing with the Jurassic Park theme, they're introduced to Paul Kirby, a businessman who suddenly descends on the site and has a proposition for Grant and Billy. So we introduced to Paul Kirby, who played by William H. Macy and his wife Amanda, who is played by Tier Leone. They asked Grant to be their guide for a low altitude flight over Isla Sona, and like Jurassic Park, Grant is persuaded by the promise of research funding. Cut to the plane, Grant falls asleep on the plane over to the island, and he wakes to discover that.

the plane is empty, but there's a velociraptor in the seat next to him saying his name. It's a dream. It's actually Billy waking him up. And that, we're going to come back to this. I think this is kind of like the most infamous and memed part of this film, I think, basically.

I didn't mind it. I honestly I've thought this for years and I was glad to have it confirmed watch it. It's fine. Yeah, it's not. I consider it a completely unremarkable part of this film. But the film itself isn't great, so I don't mind. It's not ridiculous. In context, he's having a sort of like, you know, nightmare. Like, you know, like, yeah, I mean, it's ridiculous, but, like, the entire scenario is ridiculous. The plane looks like it's going through, like, Star Wars Hyper speed. You know, it's not meant, like, it's meant to be a ridiculous, ridiculous, nightmarish, mairish scene. I think there's a much more, there are many more ridiculous raptor moments in this film that I think are actually a lot more in greenish.

which we'll get to. This is the infamous part of it, but it's like, it's fine. The plane is flying over the island, and this is another version of what we've called the brachiosaurus scene, and that was repeated in the Lost World with the Stegosaurus. It's kind of showing the majesty of these animals, showing the majesty of the dinosaurs. You know, the main theme kicks in,

and we see these beautiful shots of flying over the herbivose grazing, moving across the planes. but it's cut short by Kirby and his people bringing the plane into land. It feels like a lot of scenes in this film are cut short just when they're kind of getting going or doing something. And again, it feels like editing, but apparently they just didn't have the footage. So they come into land, they land on an airstrip, Amanda starts shouting for Eric,

and this attracts a large dinosaur that immediately injures one of Kirby's team. They try and take off again, but they graze the dinosaur, it's a spinosaurus. they graze the Spinosaurus and they crash amongst the trees. It's actually a fairly good scene. We don't really see the Spinosaurus too well. It's not framed so we can see it. So tension's building at this point. And I think it's quite a well-done sequence, right?

Because I think you see at this point, you know, and like looking at this in retrospect, and if you're coming at it, you know at this point, it's a slash the, depending on it. And we'll get into kind of like the, you know, specificity of the dinosaurs when we get into later. editions of this podcast. But you can tell it's the Spinosaurus, you know, retrospectively. But I think if you put it in the context of what's happening in film, you see just enough of it to know it's

not a T-Rex, I would say, right? So it's kind of like, it is building this idea of, what in God's name is that? You know, so in that sense, it's actually quite a good, it's quite a good scene. I actually think it's probably one of the better scenes, one of the better scenes in the film. and it introduces a different kind of mechanism like we've had to happen before in the other films with different sets but this idea of involving a plane and a run it's good I like that

I actually quite like this sequence it kind of deteriorates from here but this one is pretty well executed well yeah it deteriorates almost immediately because the Spinosaurus gets into the crashed plane, kills another of Kirby's guys the animatonic doesn't look great

and especially when it's playing with the fuselage kind of rolling it backwards and forwards, it really felt to me like we were missing out on what I referred to as Spielberg's visual flare for this kind of action. It all felt more disjointed and comparatively weightless as the Spina Soros just rolls this fuselage back and forth. There's also the animatronic, right? I'm glad you brought that up because I've got the note here where it's, I've just got, the Spinosaurus animatronic feels a bit more soulless, right? It feels like an animatronic.

I realize that's a ridiculous thing to say, right? But, you know, you'll get a lot of talk about kind of practical effects versus CGI and, you know, in particular, how the former is more effective than the latter. And I don't think that's necessarily true in all cases. It's to do with the craft and the care with which you approach visual effects, right, whether it's animatronic or CGI. And I think the framing of the animatronic here is the problem, right? There's too many shots of it, I think, where it's just fully in shot, front and center,

and it's trying to, like, show the whole thing. Whereas if you think back to when animatronics were used in, let's see, the T-Rex attack in the original Jurassic Park, it's obscured, it's only part of the face, it's, you know, the torch shining on the eye or something. It's taken more care as to the framing and even things like the blocking of kind of, kind of, of where the animatronic is and I don't see that same care here. So in terms of you were to put them side by side in broad daylight outside the studio complex, I have no doubt that the Spinosaurus animatronic is every bit sophisticated,

even perhaps more sophisticated eight years later than the T-Rex one was. But this is where your point about... It's how you shoot it. Spielberg's visual craft comes in. I think it's lacking here. And that's why the Spinesaurus animatronic feels a little bit more shonky compared to some of the other ones. Yeah, exactly.

It's how you shoot it. frame it, it's how it looks in the frame of the camera, not in how the animatronic itself looks. It's how you film it. And I think we're missing out on the Spielberg of it all. So the gang escape, and they run into a T-Rex scavenging a corpse. And there's a fight scene between the T-Rex and the Spinosaurus. They specifically designed to tell us that this new carnivore is the big threat now. if he can kill the bad guy of the previous films then the stakes must surely have been raised It's a bit of a classic maneuver really

It feels very classic It feels like the newborn In Alien Resurrection Immediately killing a xenomorph To show that you know This is the new threat This is what we're worried about now So we learn from Kirby

That their son has gone missing on the island And they're seeking him out They thought Grant could be their guide Since he's been there before but Cranth says I haven't, I've never been to Wylisorna you're thinking of Ian Malcolm Jeff Goldblum was supposed to appear in this

but there was a scheduling issue so they just couldn't work it out so they just wrote out his scene I don't know where he would have appeared presumably at the start or the end I also wanted kind of Seinfeld references in the Jurassic Park films right? So you've got

Wayne 9 the first one yeah I actually think in this one I do wonder if there's a Seinfeld reference in here, because it's at this point, right, that we find out that Kirby, you know, William H. Macy's character, they're not a wealthy prayer couple. They're just kind of like a glass couple and he owns a bathroom and tile business or something, right? And basically, I do think, I do wonder, if you think about Renton, this is about two years after the Seinfeld finale, or I do wonder if, like, Alan Grant should have picked up on this, because when he's introduced to Kirby, he describes themselves as an importer exporter, and that's, like, thanks to the whole art vandaly thing with George Cassidy. This is like the archetypal I have made my job up profession,

you know? So I do wonder if you should have caught on to this. You know, because as soon as Kirby said that and I'd forgotten much about this film before I watched it, as soon as he said that, I went, well, that's not real, that sounds like the whole art vandaly thing. And sure enough, here we are. I didn't catch that, but as soon as you said in Porter,

exporter, I was thinking of George Costanza. Yeah, exactly. So there's a brief scene. with Paul and Amanda, where they sort of gesture towards, it turns out they're divorced, they're separated, and the kid has gone off with Amanda's new husband or new partner. So they're a brief scene with Paul and Amanda where they sort of gesture towards still having feelings for one another. Grant also talks to Billy about the Spinosaurus and said that the Spinosaurus wasn't on InGen's list of animals that they produced, as some kind of ominous music.

this will never get paid off this doesn't matter at all it's a plot point that is dropped as soon as Grant finishes his sentence Kirby is revealed as a bathroom tile salesman like we just said and the mercenary guy is more of a booking agent for actual mercenaries

at this point I've written why not just make a film with mercenaries to perhaps be more exciting the party finds the parachute and the camcorder that Ben, the father was using, the stepfather. They take the huge unfuled parachute and they discover the corpse of, I guess, the stepdad,

which looks fairly decayed. It was very decayed for eight weeks, to be honest. Kirby directs Grant to some eggs, which he finds. Grant recognises this as a raptor nest. Ominous music, Billy looking suspicious. The party continue into an overground in-gen compound. There's some ominous flickers of movement in the background of shots. they eat some food presumably expired food from a vending machine

the building turns out to be a lab full of incubators and we get some more of grants you know this isn't how you make dinosaurs this is how you play God and we get more of Grant's cynical attitude I'd also argue this is the only that when he says this you know lingering shot

this is how you play God right I actually think that's probably the only nod this film actually makes it anything related to the first or second film really yeah you know I mean obviously there's the lettersy we already spoken about. But in terms of like the actual action of the films that progresses,

that's pretty much the only link it makes back to it. I haven't thought of that, but I think you're right. It's just, there is just a dinosaur, or island, there is just an island filled with dinosaurs. It's not gone into in that much detail. You know, we'll discuss this as we carry on, but

the weightier themes of the first two films around nature and control and genetic engineering and scientific advancement are just gone in this film. They are not here. to any extent that there's it all feels lighter

it feels frothier what themes there are are very thin and we'll get into them a little but they're poking around this lab and they discover a raptor there's a raptor in the lab so I alluded to it

right but before you describe it this to me is the most ridiculous raptor moment in this film it is not the raptor in Alan Grant's imagination saying Alan Alan Alan on the plane It's this moment. I think this is completely absurd.

Talyone is looking at some things in jars, some mad scientist things in jars, and sees a raptor head in a jar, what appears to be a raptor head in a jar. This raptor is just motionless in this jar. She looks more closely at it. Stock still. Stoctue still. She looks more closely at it. For a long time. Looks more closely at it and it blinks and moves slightly.

She realizes, oh no, there is a raptor in the lab. an actual raptor. It's ridiculous. So yeah, your problem with this is the raptor standing stuck still, the rector not exhibiting any hunting behaviour. I think that this, I mean, I think that this is like the first point where a raptor actually appears, right? And I think it really does represent what I think is probably the main issue with the raptors in this film, which is, yes, they're intelligent, they're not hyper-intelligent, right? And I think it starts to remove, you know, like, What this film's proposing at this point is that the Raptors notice these people are here, and it's decided to stay absolutely still, behind an obstacle that makes it look like it's not actually there, and it's going to remain that way until someone gets close. And there are other things that happen where it's like, you're portraying these things as too intelligent.

You're removing the animal element from them, where the animal instinct and the animalistic nature. of them combined with just enough intelligence to make them not mindless, right, makes them truly dangerous. And it's really, this is the nexus point as far as I'm concerned, this very moment is the nexus point for the increased anthropomorphization of the dinosaurs in this franchise, right? And there are later scenes here, which we'll come back to, which I think make it even more. And the thing that I find remarkable about this, I'm going to make a bigger point about this and I think we both will about

how certain parts of this film end up in later films in terms of their attitude to certain aspects of the franchise so I'm not going to linger on it here because I think there's a bigger point that this to me is the more ridiculous moment and it's what spins out from it and what it implies

that makes it move away from the first two films it's very interesting that you refer to this point as a nexus point for the amphipar morphism of the dinosaurs because I agree certainly in Jurassic World we're going to get a lot more of that

but it's interesting that you mention it because the Shoshinoff article that I mentioned earlier about Ellie Sattler talks about the lost world as this kind of nexus point for humanizing the dinosaurs with the introduction of the Tyrannosaurus Rex family so when the dinosaurs attack humans in the lost world

they have a clear motive a clear human motive their baby has been stolen and they want to returned. It says the article, this continues in Jurassic Park 3, we're a velociraptor trying to take back her stolen egg, which we'll get to. Yeah. So the dinosaurs are suddenly

changed from animals to maternal creatures who will nurture and protect their children in human ways. And the underlying message of the films, the article says, changes from one warning against uncontrolled scientific expectation.

The underlying message of the films changes from one warning against uncontrolled scientific experimentation to a treatise on the cruelty of humans towards animals. And I have more to say as well about this intelligence of the raptors and anthropomorphization of them, but I'll leave it until later, because we have a lot more raptor stuff to come. But yes, I agree. This is a silly moment that doesn't make sense. and it's interesting to note that this raptor does have quills on its head it's a kind of new design for a raptor that we haven't seen before they have quills on the raptors in kind of a nod towards the kind of paleontological discoveries of the past few years when this film was made specifically that velociraptors or the diononicus that the raptor is actually based on had feathers so they're kind of gesturing to that Wikipedia says that it's only

the males that have quills in the film, but I couldn't find that sourced to anyone or anything, so I'm not sure if that's intended. I wouldn't say it particularly comes through. It doesn't come through in the film, but maybe, maybe they're trying to say all the ones we saw previously were females, which lines up with how Jurassic Park engineered its dinosaurs, but I don't know if it's true. They escaped the raptors into a stampede of Pararolophus, but the raptors pursue them into the trees. we lose one of the mercenaries to a raptor

who the raptors injure and leaves us a trap for the other humans but we're getting more about the intelligence of the raptors Grant gets surrounded by raptors but he's saved by a mysterious figure and a smoke grenade it's Eric the kid Eric has survived by scavenging injureals and using

T-rec urine to distract the other animals to keep the other animals away to deter the other animals he's been there eight weeks there's a sort of meta review of Crichton when Eric refers to Malcolm's book as kind of preachy too much chaos and too high on himself which is very much how Malcolm

the Crichton insert is portrayed in those books we get some scenes of Kirby and Amanda interacting Kirby's kind of established as cautious but a safe pair of hands and he is Amanda gradually coming back together because as you said this film is basically very normative about the nuclear family The stepdad as interloper into the family is killed off screen and the nuclear family is restored through these trials and tribulations of being on the dinosaur island.

Grant and Eric discover a boat on the river that they could use to get to the coast. Billy and the Kirby's also head to the coast. Eric hears that distinctive ringtone of the satellite phone that his mercenary, as far as mercenaries, brought to the island and runs towards it. So do the Kirby's. The music swells as this beautiful white American nuclear family is reunited, albeit with a fence between them. But it turns out Kirby doesn't have his phone. The Spinosaurus consumed it, and it's ringing in his digestive system. He attempts to eat them.

They escape into a building. At this point, Billy gets really intense about his bag. Grant discovers that Billy stole some raptor eggs from the nest. He wanted to sell them. He had the best intentions to make money for their dig, but it was a bad idea. and Grant calls him no better than the people that built this place. They descend into the building they've gone into. They decide to cross a bridge through the mist one by one for some reason.

Grant realizes from some guano and the structure of the building that this is an aviary. He actually says birdcage, because the script doesn't respect its audience enough to use the word aviary. This scene is taken from the first novel, where they go into a Tyrannadon aviary. on Grant and the kids journey back to the visit centre. Taranodon takes Eric, Billy uses the parachute to glide down to save him. I quite like the design of the aviary. I think it's a striking location. I think it's evocative of the zoo-like nature of the park,

which, as you alluded to, has been somewhat lost in this film. But I like the design of the aviary, especially the kind of far too brief exterior shot that we get of it. So as attacked by Taranodons, Billy gets swept down river, Grant and the Kirby's narrowly escape, and they find the boat that they spotted from the cliff. There's an interesting scene where Grant gives his theory about the two types of boy, and he does say boy. The two types of boy, ones that want to be, is it astronauts, and ones that want to be astronomers? So ones that want to go to the stars and ones that want to look at the stars.

And he relates this to dinosaurs, obviously. So Billy is one who wanted to see dinosaurs, Grant is happy studying the bones, the paleontology of dinosaurs. But my point is that it's very pointed that the script says boy, and he's talking about these boys, as if girls or women can't pursue scientific inquiry, which is very interesting link to Ellie's depiction in this film as effectively retired from paleontology because she's had a child and now she's a full-time mother. And the only other woman in the film is Teia Leone, whose role is also mother, who doesn't seem to have much character to her beyond being Eric's mother. I mean, also, in this scenario, in contrast to, in contrast to Elie Sattler in the first film, who, if anything, is actually kind of portrayed as the adult in the room in a lot of cases.

Like, Tia Leone's character, no thought of Tia Leone, but her character is portrayed as an absolute liability throughout. in contrast to just about everybody, including her ex-husband, who's hardly portrayed as being kind of like, you know, competent, but he gets his moments of competency later in the film. He gets his moment in a way that she doesn't. Yeah, he's about to use a crane to attack the Spinosaur. But she gets nothing.

She doesn't really do anything. She is just a mother and husband to Kirby, to William H. Macy. As I go down the river, there's a nice shot of some. Herbavos grazing by the river. It's another spectacular moment for seeing these dinosaurs in their natural habitat. But even this scene feels rushed. And it's worth noting that the main theme here is even rushed to cover it. It's a truncated version of the main theme that feels shortened. It just feels like every scene is a beat or two too short. I really notice this around the aviary where there's an exterior shot of the aviary that ends one or two.

two seconds before you want it to, and this scene which feels like it ends a beat or two before you want it to. Night Falls, the party hears the satellite phone ringing again in some dung piles. The phone has battery enough for one call. Grant calls Ellie, but her useless kid, picks up the phone and gets distracted by Barney, the children's dinosaur character. The Spinosaurus emerges from the river and attacks the boat. Grant manages to get through to Ellie and he manages to say the river, site B, that's all he gets off. The Spinosaurus attempts to eat them, but Kirby strikes it, Grant hits it with a flare, setting the gasoline on the river, on fire around it, scaring it off. The family is reunited yet again.

As a family get close to the coast, they're again beset by raptors. Grant returns the eggs to them and uses the 3D-printed Raptor Resonance Chamber to communicate with them. some raptor calls through the resonance chamber calling for help, and it distracts the raptors long enough that they just grab the eggs and run away. So we're getting a lot of raptor intelligence in this film, this idea that raptors had a primate level of intelligence and communication, maybe even a higher than primate level of intelligence and communication. And this is certainly a precursor to Jurassic World where, you know, we'll get get into it when we get to it, but Chris Pratt will train raptors to behave the same way you train a dog. This isn't at all accurate, maybe needless to say, but this isn't at all accurate. So there's an interesting article in advances in journalism and communication by Yushi Hu, which is just a

collection of dinosaur inaccuracies in the whole Jurassic Park franchise. Like it literally goes dinosaur by dinosaur, saying what's wrong with the depiction in the films. And one of the problems is that velociraptors were shown as highly intelligent, being able to achieve complex communications with one another and outsmart human characters, which is unlikely. These animals were likely as smart as an average bird. Similarly, in our article in National Geographic, Amy McKeever says, Velociraptor prosely wasn't as intelligent as popular culture has made it out to be. It's true that this dinosaur had a large brain in proportion to its body, making it one of the more intelligent dinosaurs, but that's a level of brain power likely on parr with average birds rather than the likes of chimps or parrots.

These aren't actually, the velociraptors in the film are more closely modelled on either Utah raptors or Dynonicus, and Dynonicus might have had more intelligence based on its relative brain size, and the conception that they hunted in packs suggests some level of communication, but this. idea is disputed, the idea that they hunted impacts cooperatively is disputed. So a 2007 study by Roach and Brinkman, based on carnivore hunting in modern birds and crocodiles suggests that they probably just hunted individually on their own. So this velociraptor intelligence just isn't accurate, but I think more importantly than simply inaccuracy is what it says about the screenwriters and the kind of patriarchal anthropocentric system that they are in is that they want to imbue

hunting dinosaurs with at human level intelligence in real life if we're looking at bird intelligence the most intelligent birds are corvids and citizens which is to say like crows magpies and citizens parrots the first corvids are scavengers so they will eat meat but they will largely scavenge it The second Cetus scenes are grain of oars.

They will eat grains and seeds. What the screenwriters want to do is create this link between hunting behavior and intelligence, as if to say that to hunt is intelligent. To be a kind of patriarchal, you know, colonialist hunter is what imbues you with human level intelligence. It is not intelligent to scavenge. you know, it is intelligent to hunt. They want to set up velociraptors, these hunting carnivores,

as human-level intelligence, to reinforce that point, I think. Which is also, that point you made, it's also backed up with a little bit in the depiction of other dinosaurs, right? Because one of the reasons that I think this film is also not always well thought of is the T-Rex, in its very brief appearance, right, is dispatched with pretty quickly.

by the Spinosaurus and what is the only thing that we see the T-Rex doing before this? It's scavenging on a corpse. It's yeah it's gorging itself on a corpse right so even the animals are portrayed

in that they're they kind of get rid of them pretty quickly in this case. I think this is an interesting point you know obviously I don't think the screenwriter sat down and thought I've made this link between hunting and patriarchy and kind of white supremacist colonialism that I'm making,

I just think it kind of seeped into their consciousness through the systems of patriarchy and colonialism that we find ourselves in. And so they've gone with... It's like I say, I don't think there's a difference between... There's a difference between what you said there being the intention and it coming out through a lack of other intention, if that makes sense. I'll link to what you said earlier about just writing the default, just falling back on the default

and I think the default position that they are enshrining here is the idea that hunting is intelligent, is an intelligent thing to do and that if a creature is a hunter it must be intelligent and it must have a human level of intelligence

it must be a communicator and it must embody this anthropomorphic level of intelligence but the funny thing is actually in terms of kind of like in viewing animals with intelligence, right? To go back to your Corvett example, right? You don't have to go particularly deep to find examples that we'd make for that if you'd extrapolate into this kind of

like, you know, stranded on an island with, you know, dinosaurs which are more akin to modern birds, right? I mean, like, Corvids, like, you know, there's been studies that where to show, they can use tools, they can solve basic problems, right? You know, they are intelligent animals. They can use tools and they can recognize people. If you spend enough time with a crow, it will recognize you and come to come to know you. Yeah, you know, like these are intelligent animals and you can, you know, and then if you then extrapolate that to kind of like the velociraptors in this science fiction film, you can create scenarios, I think, that are threatening and dangerous without actually,

without actually kind of like, you know, really kind of like going into the realms of fantasy, right? Yes. Which is what I think, which is what I think they've done here, because here, because here it's one thing to have communication between these animals it's one thing to then have communication to the level that they're almost kind of conversing with the humans really

and the idea of this trap setting and it's too much it's too much it starts to make it to go back to the point that Alan Grant makes and the point that I will come back to in the minute it starts to become much more of a monster movie It's too much and they will continue to lean on this in Jurassic World so I'll probably leave this to discussion in Jurassic World but there are all kinds of thoughts for Jurassic Park 4 after this comes out

to do with militarised raptors and talking raptors even that do not get made but yeah there's there's stuff going on that will be picked up by later films. And just on that point, because this is where I want to kind of bring in my point about something that really struck me when I was watching this film, right? And it's so devoid of any bigger ideas, right?

And there's a debate to be heard about what that means for the film itself, right? Because for what it's obviously ending up trying to be, I'd actually argue it maybe executes on that idea, inverted commas, better than the lost world does, right, in terms of what they want to do. My problem with Jurassic Park 3 is it's a complete

lack of ambition. I was going to say, I think it executes that lack of ambition. Yeah, I think it executes on that lack of ambition largely competently. There are some kind of issues I'm sure we may get into. But the thing that really struck me about it is, like, quite how

many of the ideas here filter forward into the Jurassic World Series, right? We have the idea of Alan Grant saying you know what John Hammond created were genetically engineered theme park monsters nothing more nothing less

as a central tenet of Jurassic World right and it's actually kind of like Chris Pratt even and we'll talk about it in the next episode he almost says something like that line for line yeah right you know that's in there there's the idea of humans communicating with raptors and raptors

having a level of intelligence that allows them to be trained, there is, you know, there's all sorts of things in here. And the idea, like, even the, even the, the line about this is how you play God, it was said in Jurassic about it, but it's brought back here and it's kind of given a similar level of lip service in Jurassic world, right? The idea is there, but I don't think they really do anything with it necessarily. That's, that kind of focus on a heteronormative nuclear family is there with clear Deering and her nephews and the relationship that then, like, I

almost, and this is the grander point I want to make, I was really struck by how many links there are here that I actually kind of want to call this Jurassic World Zero. Yes. You know, like it doesn't feel so much like a sequel to Jurassic Park. It feels like a prequel to Jurassic World.

Yeah. And that I find really, really surprising watching this. Me too. I've made the same point in my notes that it's interesting how much of the DNA of later films comes from this film. I wrote in my notes that it's almost as if the franchise gets stuck, like a record stuck on a certain point, it gets stuck on Jurassic Park Free, interestingly enough, which is odd because that's not, clearly not the most well-regarded film in this trilogy.

I have a theory as to why this has happened, though, right? And it's, if you look at kind of like a couple of the sequences that work better in this film, right? And like the aviary scene is one you mentioned, which is taken from the original novel, right? It was something that wasn't done at the time, right? And then there's the riverboat sequence. It's kind of like a semi-adapted thing. Riverboat sequences also, yeah. Yeah, right.

And if you then look at kind of like the story of how this film got here and all the troubles they have with it, and then you look at Jurassic World and, you know, some of the things that are being done there and its reverence of the original, I think it's frankly because this film represents the point, and it's reflected in its lack of ambition, it's reflected in its lack of particularly novel themes, compared to the lost world

and as I say, I think the lost world executes on what it wants to do less well sometimes than Jurassic Park 3 does, but it was like you said earlier, it was trying to do something, right? You can argue all day about how well it does it, but it was attempting to you something a bit different, right? It's almost like the series, after that point, starting with this film, is basically just recycling concepts and rejected material from those first two films. And that's why it feels kind of a little bit stuck in a loop and it feels less ambitious, because it doesn't have its own ideas. It's recycling stuff that has already been rejected and excised from films that express ideas, you know?

Like, you can point to the odd action sequence in here, which is well done, right? And I think, you know, the Avery scene, I think, is one. I think the Spinosaurus T-Rex battles. Like, there are bits in here that are well executed, but there's really nothing behind them because they're rejected embellishments to previous films. That's what they're now constructing films out of. They're constructing films out of things that have been rejected or jettisoned from previous entries. Yeah, constructing films out of these rejected ideas and sticking them together with the finest themes possible. You know, we've talked about how there's no scientific themes in this film, there's no kind of grand ethical discussions about genetic engineering and what is right to do with science. But the theme of this film just seems to be family. Like, it's, you know, bringing together the white American nuclear family.

Which in and of itself is kind of a cheap copy of a lot of Spielberg. I was going to say, it's just the theme of every American blockbuster. It's like you say, you know, it's defaulting to the mean of every other blockbuster. Like, they're all about family, they're all about the importance of family, because we live in a patriarchal society that values the nuclear family. But there's no weightier themes than that. It's just about ultimately Kirby coming together with. striving for that.

Kirby coming together with his wife again, finding their child and being a family again, which is reinforced with the Raptors, who also just want to find their eggs and be a family again in the kind of anthropomorphism of the Raptors. And there's nothing more to it than that. So ultimately the whole film just ends up feeling very frothy and very light and very weightless.

Yeah, I think Nikitha, there's nothing to really bring you back to it. No. you know um like and it's like i say there are there are individual sequences i think are quite good but like why do i care like or or more accurately right to think about like this film came out 2001 in terms of discussing this film individually right because we're doing this in the context of the whole series and i'm very weird saying this film's not worth discussing as we're kind of like deep into a podcast episode where we're discussing this very film right so it got to be careful what say here. But it's a case of

what is there to recommend this film 23 years later? And the answer is not a lot. No. It's either rejected ideas, as you've said, rejected ideas from earlier films

or ideas that will be executed better in later films. Yeah, exactly. And it's just a case of it's, yeah, some of these individual sequences are executed well, but they have all the longevity of a deleted scene from the first two ones, you know, or an extended cut of one of the later ones. It's like, yeah, they're neat sequences, but they don't add anything. They don't add anything to how memorable this film is or

whether it makes you think about anything, or even, or even how you feel about the characters in this film, you know, it doesn't really change anything. But yeah, but anyway, I'm laboring the point. But yeah, I want to retitle this Jurassic World Zero. Because there is a lot about how this film approaches it that feeds forward. And I wasn't expecting that going in, to be honest. I think that's a good point. But there's one last scene of our summary, which is after the Raptors escape, the Navy and the Marines arrive.

There's a clear invasion of Costa Rican sovereign land on the part of the US military. and I'm sure will lead to many issues going forward that we don't see. Yeah, I enjoyed that, but I've got a note here, do U.S. military saved the day? Hurrah! Again, it feels like defaulting to the meeting. The army saved them. The military come in.

But no, thanks to Ellie's partner in the State Department, the Navy and the Marines feel emboldened to invade Costa Rican sovereign soil. Billy is also revealed to be alive. Okay. As a helicopter's head for home, Grant... And it's never seen in thrash eyes again. So, yeah, who cares? As a helicopter's head for home,

Grant looks out the window at Tyrannadons, flying over the ocean, looking for new nesting grounds. These are, again, big ecological questions about the management of taranodons that the film has no interest in actually addressing. And I think is also a problem for the film itself, within the text of the film. So at the very start, in the opening scene, the boat, they're going to a bank of fog on the boat, and the boat is suddenly emptied.

It's not clear what did it, but Joe Johnston later said it's Tyrannadons. So taranodons are already free to get the boat. They're not freed by the actions of Kirby and Co. leaving the aviary open by accident. They must already be loose, looking for new nesting grounds. So the significance of this later shot is, lessened because nothing has changed. It isn't a paradigm shift if the

Tyrannadons were already loose. It's another example of how ill thought out some of the elements are here. And even there's even a bit towards the end of the film which just annoys me deeply and it's like

it kind of speaks to the whole regression to the mean thing because the thing that always stands out for me is this film comes out a year before Spider-Man, right? Which is a film which I'm not actually all that keen on I seem to me a minority on that one, but one of the

things that I remember rolling my eyes at when I saw it is when he swings to the top of, is it the Empire State Building? I can't even remember but at the top of the table and there's like the American flag in the background. Yeah, that's like the last shot I think, the last shot of the film. Right? And this film has its own thing where it's like, you know,

the Tarnadon's are flying off and then there's a line of it kind of like, you know, I dare them to nest in Oklahoma. It's like, oh, you know, the USA they'll just been picked up by the US military. It's like, yeah, I dare them to come to the US of A and, you know, where I've got my, you know, my nuclear family reunite and, you know, I'm a small

business owner and, you know, small town America and it's like, oh, Christ almighty, like really, you know, it's just, even right at the end that it finds a way to annoy me. Yeah, that makes sense, you know, you can see why you get that in Spider-Man, which comes out just after 9-11, to the extent that they had to edit the Twin Towers out of the poster. But this film

comes out in July of 2001, a few months before 9-11. So I guess we're just a few months into George W. Bush's term as president, first term as president. Oh, no, actually, it would be over a year until, because he would have taken office in 2000. But still, you're getting this kind of Republican triumphalism of American exceptionalism, even before 9-11. It just gets intensified later on. So, yeah, I think you're right that there's echoes of that,

some precursors of what will come in just a few months after 9-11 in the kind of American exceptionalism and the US military, rescuing them at the end. Yeah, which is very glossed over. But I think as we've discussed, there's a lot of things glossed over. in this very short film, basically.

Yeah, so it's a short film. It's only 92 minutes, and that's all of it. I think it's a film that will present a bit of an issue for me where we come to our rankings at the end of this, you know? Yeah, well, it's like I said, like, I don't, there's a lot I don't like about this film, but one of the things that I've always tried to do as a critic is to take a film on its own terms, right?

And I actually think that in a lot of cases, like Jurassic Park 3, actually does okay on its own terms. Well, we've said that it's not an ambitious film. Exactly. And that's my issue with it, right? So it's kind of like, I've got a towed a line between what I want it to do, right? And also, frankly, I think sitting within the series, it does what it probably should do. I think that's the more important thing, right, rather what I wanted to do, versus what it's actually attempting. Right.

And on what it's attempting, it does all right. You know, it's not great, but it does all right. I still think it has its issues. Like, I mean, the whole kind of thing where they get attacked by the Spinosaurus, then they get attacks by the T-Rex. Then the T-Rex and the Spinosaurus fight and they run away. Like, they're running around, like, comedy characters. I mean, you could put the Benny Hill with it.

I said in the last one, right, when they're running around with the maybe T-Rex, you could put the Betty Hill music. You can put the Benny Hill music over that sequence, and it would fit even better, to me honest. It's laughable, like, the way that that is cut together. But then there's other pits. like the initial raptor attack in the compound

I actually think it's pretty well done right you know my issues with the raptor intelligence is notwithstanding but like it's it's well done it's it's a nice sequence right so it does okay on its own terms I suppose my bigger question this is the question of the kind of like this entire

series of episodes really is how much do we let it define its own terms right because it takes so many ideas from the first two and it then manages to actually feed forward I don't think anybody's referencing Jurassic Park 3 in their later films but the approach it's taken to its material

and the leftover material from the first two is echoed in later films right so there is an element of yes it does okay on its own terms but how much should we let this film define its own terms basically yeah an interesting I don't know yeah you use the term nexus point

an interesting turning point for the franchise I mean, this film effectively kills it for a decade, over a decade until Jurassic World because there are various attempts. It's largely forgotten about it. Yeah. It's not really referenced a lot, or at least I certainly don't remember

it being referenced in later ones, which is quite remarkable given the influence it seems to or, you know, the way as I say, I don't think Jurassic Park 3 necessarily influences later films that much, but certainly the later films seem to be influenced in a way that

is similar to Jurassic Park 3. So given how forgettable it's considered and how it seems to be kind of like regarded as either the worst or certainly one of the lesser entries, it's remarkable how much this approach is repeated when they come back to and try to revive it. Yes.

Yeah. Because there are various attempts to start a Jurassic Park 4, but they all get stuck in development hell for one reason or another, which I imagine we'll discuss more next episode. Yeah. Until Jurassic Film, The Jurassic World comes out in 2015 over a decade later.

So, yeah, people just forget about Jurassic Park after this. It feels like to some extent. So, yeah, I can't say it's a good film. Can't say I enjoyed it very much. It's frothy and meaningless. There's some fun action scenes. But again, I saw it the week as a substance and Megalopolis, so one of the better films of that week.

But yeah, not good. Not, not, it's certainly not up there with Jurassic Park in the Lost World for me. No, I'd agree with that. I think ultimately, as I say, I think it executes certain things better than the lost world does, but the Lost World is ultimately, of the films that we've looked at so far, we'll get into the Jurassic World ones and more depth in later episodes, but certainly the Lost World was a more interesting film for me. I think the main takeaway I have from watching this is,

I am stunned and shocked at how little the subsequent films learnt from this one and the reception what it does wrong I'm amazed

that some of these mistakes have been repeated not only repeated but in some cases doubled down on yeah right and I think had somebody

actually paid more attention to what is deemed to be wrong with this film you might have had better subsequent films which vary wild in quality and we'll talk about the more detail

when we get to them but I think that's the thing that strikes me about it I'm amazed at how much of this film I see in the other ones and how little attention has been paid to its mistakes yeah

I think that's fair to say so this comes out in 2001 doesn't do terribly well doesn't do badly I mean it's eighth in the worldwide gross box office but that's not as good as the previous films so i guess uh i guess that'll do us until until we come back and discuss Jurassic world uh next episode until then you know thanks for listening to uh take one presents thanks for listening to the dinopod you can find more of

take one's work at tick one cinema dot net uh and on x and blue sky and wherever uh please follow the podcast please subscribe please tell your friends We don't have any advertising, so we spread by word of mouth, so let people know. And I guess we'll come back next month to discuss Jurassic World. Until then.